[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: Definition of the Artists Book (YES, again)
- From: Richard Miller <rmiller@PETERBORO.NET>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 06:51:04 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <199803050200.VAA25973@mail.peterboro.net>
- Message-Id: <199803051154.DAA20048@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: The list for all the book arts!" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>No, this won't work either. There are plenty of 'artists' books' where it
>is precisely the textual which is of primary interest. Typographical
>artists' books, and, anyway, is typography textual or visual -- isn't it both?
Here we go further into Pat's can of worms.
For me typography is inherently visual. The whole point is to make the
words visable/readable,attractive/whatever. How many printed versions of
Poe's "The Raven" exist? The essential difference between them is visual:
The typeface chosen, the size of type, the paper, the illustrations (if
any), etc. I'm sorry Charles, but while a Typographer can make an artists
book, it's primary interest is still visual.
Richard Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The Canadian Bookbinders and Book Artists Guild website: